capt_oats

A quick check on Plymouth's transfer history shows they haven't paid a transfer fee for a player since an 'undisclosed' fee in the 12/13 season so it'd seem unlikely that they'd suddenly go from bringing in free transfers to paying out £500k for someone. Edit: apologies, there was an 'undisclosed' fee paid in the 14/15 season's January window too but the general point still holds. The majority of their incoming players have been free transfers.

I noticed it but on review really just took it as a turn of phrase. However the other quote that caught my attention was from Alan Burrows on Twitter where he remarked that on top of the contract stuff there were "A lot of irons in the fire too..." which again being a turn of phrase he uses quite often I didn't really read much into it beyond thinking "oh aye...?" What did strike me as odd having seen the number of contracts we offered out was the idea that a new manager would be happy to just crack on with the same squad he inherited from the previous incumbent. Which is why for example Samson being offered a deal raised an eyebrow, for me at least. I'd have thought the opportunity to, forgive the cliché, put his own stamp on the team might be quite appealing. I had wondered if we might look to try and address some of the more fringe players though (your Ainsworth's and Chalmers etc) since the whole thing of having players under contract who for whatever reason aren't quite fitting in the team and just accepting it, letting their contracts run down then releasing them in summer leaves us somewhat hamstrung. Obviously that's a 2 way street, you need another team to be willing to take the player on or even pay a fee where appropriate, we're not just going to rip up their deal and pay them off but it'd be nice if we could maybe be a bit more proactive in that respect, even if it's just loaning a player out for the season and getting their wage covered to free up a bit of space/budget. Edit: For what it's worth, though it was clearly budget motivated the approach we took in January: loaning out Clarkson, moving Robinson on to Port Vale, Reid to Dunfermline etc was a step in the right direction on the whole squad management front.

Old news - by about 3 posts. Always had a suspicion no-one reads my posts

Seeing as there's as much seethe about transfer policy perhaps this is an appropriate juncture to mention that it seems Plymouth may be interested in Ainsworth. http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/Motherwell-winger-rumoured-weighing-Plymouth/story-29331769-detail/story.html

Is it not Dundee's American owners who have been pushing this? According to the Evening Tele they're the ones driving it. https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/american-peh-deal-dundee-v-celtic-game-usa-85-complete/ Edit: John Nelms has had quite a bit to say about how the Scottish game markets, or fails to market, itself: https://www.sundaypost.com/sport/football/scottish-premiership/scotland-hardest-league-world-says-dundee-chief-john-nelms/

By all accounts, from what I've read, Killie fans were delighted to get shot of Samson so it depends how much stock you put in their opinion. Having said that, he's an experienced 'keeper at this level, despite his ability being open to question. However, given we went through last pre-season looking at the prospect of Twardzik being first choice and the season prior actually went into the season with with Twardzik as first choice then in that context I'm kind of OK with Samson extending his deal. Given Ripley's away back to Boro and we've released Brett Long then had Samson left we'd be in a position where we had no first team goalkeepers and as Joeboy suggests earlier in the thread I'm not sure how much better we'd get on the wages we're offering so in that respect it seems to be very much a 'devil you know' sort of deal and also a pretty convenient one for both parties; the club are looking for an experienced goalkeeper on a permanent deal on wages fitting their budget and he's a goalkeeper who only has 2 first team games to his name since leaving Killie last year. Equally it depends how things play out with the budgets for instance if it's the choice between retaining Samson on the wage we're offering and keeping say McDonald vs losing Skippy and getting in a marginally better goalie then I'm happy enough to go with the former tbh.

NBA have been moving games to London as well.

I think, though I'm not certain, that the clubs can come to a settlement on compensation. If they don't then it can go to a tribunal. See the Telfer transfer from Rangers to Dundee United. United valued the development compensation at something like £60k, the tribunal ended up setting it at £200k. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30395680) There's a whole series of clauses about it in the SPFL rules if you have the time or inclination Section F (pages 43-49): http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf

Nicky Clark? Really? Lower league is pretty much his level I'd have said. Would much rather we gave Craig Moore (assuming he signs) a run tbh. Same with Templeton, surely it'd be more in our interests to give Dom Thomas game time than bring in a guy that could barely get a start for them in the seaside leagues.

Slater? The general rumour is that he's going to Aberdeen

P&B tweeted a link: https://twitter.com/pieandbov/status/734482686245474305

I know it was just an example but I doubt Thistle would be looking for a left back given Callum Booth just signed a contract extension and was generally viewed as one of their best players. They have however just released Seabourne and looks like Frans is on his way out so they may be in the market for a centre half.

It was a two year deal he signed. So end of next season. http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2015/06/03/joe-chalmers-signs-on-at-well/ As far as Johnson playing at left back ahead of him goes, I tended to read that as being an indication of what McGhee's looking for in his full backs (ie: pace, athleticism rather than someone who can't play the position obviously) it was also telling that he highlighted the same aspects of Laing's game when he was getting a run at right back too. With that in mind it'd be fair to say that either a) McGhee doesn't rate him so would rather play a left winger/forward at left back ahead of him or b) He doesn't have the attributes that McGhee's looking for in that position since pace isn't something that Chalmers seems to be blessed with. In either scenario it's not really that positive for him. To be honest the most obvious option for him/the club would be to try and sort a season-long loan somewhere and get his wages covered.

This it? https://www.gofundme.com/23yq67t4

He's clarified the tweet. says he meant to say his first year in Scotland and states he'll be back next season.

He did, aye. It was Grimshaw went off at half time.

Came on as a sub against East Fife in the league cup

I'd imagine back 3 of Watt, Hall & McManus with Cadden & Johnson as wing backs. Watt's been playing as centre half a fair bit for the 20s so interested to see how he gets on. Really pleased to see Turnbull make the bench.

Cadden at right back from the looks of things.

Is McDonald one of them though? The five offered reduced terms as I counted (from the way it's been reported) are McManus, Hammell, Lasley, Samson and McFadden. The way I read it was that the club have indicated that they'd like to take up McDonald's option. The decision he needs to make is whether or not he wants to accept the extra year. Edit: McGhee's assertion at the weekend that we couldn't afford both McDonald and El Bakhtaoui would suggest to me that McDonald's option terms will be on par with what he's on at the moment (or at the very least that he'd remain one of our high earners).

Read an interview with McManus who said that while there's a fair bit of talking to be done he wants to stay: http://plzsoccer.com/news/174501/mcmanus-negotiations-are-a-long-way-off/ I think it depends on how reasonable (realistic) they're willing to be. Presumably the point at which they signed their last deals the club was still budgeting for top 6 & cup runs (which was mental) and during that time the club continued to post losses. I think I'm right in saying the club has posted losses each season since 11/12? It stands to reason that something needed changing in that respect. Presumably the change in budget isn't because we're 'skint' as such but rather it's to stop the club posting losses and hopefully start turning a profit or at worst breaking even. There's a difference between us asking players who are under contract to take pay cuts (which would be bad) and us offering players who are out of contract terms based on what we can afford (which is sensible). If the players are realistic enough to accept that the situation has changed since they signed those deals and acknowledge that it's in everyone's interest for the club to be self-sufficent and that the playing budget will be a major part of that then it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that they're being offered reduced terms (not to mention the fact they're all in their mid-30s). Beyond that it's a case of them weighing up whether or not they will have the potential to earn more/play as much at another club. If they stay then great, if not then McGhee has to look for replacements.

Fair point.

Do you really think that one extra start will make a difference either way? He's been at the club since September and has played 1 game. In context, he negotiated his way out his contract at Killie saying he didn't want to sit on the bench there and signed up at Fir Park where he's sat on the bench for the best part of 7 months. Presumably when he signed he was on a promise that he'd be first choice when Ripley left in January. Except rather than let him leave we actively chose to extend Ripley's contract rather than play Samson and released Twardzik instead. Now having sat on the bench for the 2nd half of the season it seems he's being offered less money than he's been getting sitting on the bench to extend his deal. Not that I'm bothered either way but I'd be surprised if he was particularly keen to stick around at Fir Park given the way it has panned out for him here. Amusingly it's almost as if the club has gone out of its way to troll Craig Samson this season.

Problem there is that Samson's been quite explicit in saying he has no interest in being a back up 'keeper and you'd think that the fact we chose to extend Ripley's loan rather than go with Samson for the 2nd half of the season at the very least casts doubt on whether he's viewed as being a viable choice for #1.

Absolutely. I was quite surprised to look at Twitter this morning and see some folk getting worked up about it.